Throughout the debate that preceded the liberation of Iraq in 2003, supporters of Saddam Hussein claimed that any attempt at removing him from power by force would trigger an explosion in "the Arab street."

As it turned out, the explosion they had predicted did take place, but only in Western streets, where anti-Americans of all denominations, their numbers inflated by the usual "useful idiots," marched to keep the Ba'athist butcher in power.

More than two years later, however, the Arab street seems to be heading for an explosion. From North Africa to the Persian Gulf and passing by the Levant, people have been coming together in various "Arab streets" to make their feelings and opinions known.

These demonstrations, some big some small, have several features in common. Unlike the rent-a-mob marches concocted by the mukhaberat secret services, this latest spate of demonstrations was largely spontaneous. Nor are the demonstrations controlled by the traditional elites, including established opposition groups and personalities.

In almost every case we are witnessing a new kind of citizens' movement, an Arab version of people power in action. But the most important feature of these demonstrations is that they are concerned not with imagined external enemies, be it Israel or the United States, but with the real deficiencies of contemporary Arab societies. In almost every case the key demand is for a greater say for the people in deciding the affairs of the nation.

It is, of course, far too early to speak of an "Arab spring."

It is not at all certain that the ruling elites will have the intelligence to manage the difficult transition from autocracy to pluralism. Nor is it certain that the budding democratic movement would produce a leadership capable of mixing resolve with moderation. The deep-rooted Arab tradition of political extremism may prove harder to dissipate than one imagines.

What is interesting is that there are, as yet, no signs, that the "Western street" may, at some point, come out in support of the new "Arab street."

Over the past two weeks several Western capitals, including London and Paris, have witnessed feverish activity by more than two dozen groups organizing meetings and marches to mark the second anniversary of the liberation of Iraq. The aim is not to celebrate the event and express solidarity with the emerging Iraqi democracy, but to vilify George W. Bush and Tony Blair, thus lamenting the demise of Saddam Hussein.

I spent part of last week ringing up the organizers of the anti-war events with a couple of questions. The first: Would they allow anyone from the newly-elected Iraqi parliament to address the gatherings? The second: Would the marches include expressions of support for the democracy movement in Arab and other Muslim countries, notably Iraq, Lebanon and Syria?

In both cases the answer was a categorical no, accompanied by a torrent of abuse about "all those who try to justify American aggression against Iraq."

But was it not possible to condemn "American aggression" and then express support for the democratic movement in Iraq and the rest of the Arab world? In most cases we were not even allowed to ask the question. In one or two cases we received mini-lectures on how democracy cannot be imposed by force.

The answer to that, of course is that, in Iraq no one tried to impose democracy by force. In Iraq force was used to remove the enemies of democracy from power so as to allow its friends to come to the fore.

That remnants of the totalitarian Left and various brands of fascism should march to condemn the liberation of Iraq is no surprise. What is surprising is that some mainstream groups, such as the British Liberal-Democrat Party and some former members of Tony Blair's Labor government, should join these marches of shame.

The Lib-Dems at their spring conference last week found enough time to reiterate their shameful opposition to the liberation of Iraq at some length. But they had no time to take note of what looks like an historic turning point in favor of democracy in the Middle East. As for those Labor ministers who resigned from Blair's cabinet in protest against the toppling of Saddam Hussein, there is as yet no sign that they might express any support for freedom marches in various Arab capitals.

The situation is no better in continental Europe.Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, has yet to show the same degree of activism in support of the Arab democratic movement as he did in 2003, when he fought desperately to prevent the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.

For his part, France's President Jacques Chirac, who in February 2003 proposed an emergency summit to save Saddam Hussein, and appeared almost daily on television opposing the liberation of Iraq, is yet to give the slightest hint that he might favor the demise of any more tyrannies in the region.

Why are so many Westerners, living in mature democracies, ready to march against the toppling of a despot in Iraq but unwilling to take to the streets in support of the democratic movement in the Middle East?

Is it because many of those who will be marching in support of Saddam Hussein this month are the remnants of totalitarian groups in the West plus a variety of misinformed idealists and others blinded by anti-Americanism?

Or is it because they secretly believe that the Arabs do not deserve anything better than Saddam Hussein?

Those interested in the health of Western democracies would do well to ponder those questions.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!